Grab/Ryde issues and charges

[Jman888]

Do u guys feel that grab is super pricey?

Compare that to Uber.

 

Seems like grab is losing market share

 

 

i also notice they are more pricy, i tried to book a few time when the rate was lower than Uber but they always dun have enough car after waiting for a minute or two      , end up use uber that is 10% more but able to get one within 6-8min.  So far i have yet to take any Grabcar.

 

Has been using Comfort apps, super fast nowadays    

[Othello]

 

Has been using Comfort apps, super fast nowadays    

 

factoring in the booking fee, are the fares more or less similar now  ? 

[Jman888]

factoring in the booking fee, are the fares more or less similar now  ? 

 

 

hard to compare price if you dun travel the same route frequently, i would think Comfort is cheaper most of the time if you need it in ulu area and peak hour.  

 

Like you said there are more taxi on the road now, i was at Vivo the other day with probably 15 people before me in the queue, took less than 10 min to reach me, where few people were still waiting for the Uber/Grab car (uber and grab sometime take a long while to come).

[Auron]

I find uber/grab really affect taxi companies a lot. Nowadays can see empty taxi at taxi stand even during peak hours or on weekend. Last time where got such thing de.

 

true..

 

last month i go holiday at taiwan...

booked uber... $14 to airport... $16 back from airport...

 

if i take taxi, each way will be greater than $20...  

....

 

But Uber still wants to have a presence here, therefore it branched out into the car rental model to enable people access to a car in return for enlisting them as drivers. Believe me, LCR is a 100% loss making venture. They will never make any money. Just do a simple calculation and you will know.

 

...

 

why is LCR a loss making venture? cannot be...as long as got ppl to rent them... 

 

the recent news put there are over 50k of such private hire cars on the road compare to 16k 3 years ago...

so how can such model be loss making?

 

a lot of ppl are renting such vehicle due to the hefty downpayment required for a new car...

that is why such business are booming over the last 3 year.... 

[Jman888]

Must be licensed and black tape oso no use liao...

 

"Private-hire car (PHC) drivers from ride-sourcing service operators such as Uber and Grab are now required to obtain a vocational licences under amendments to the Road Traffic Act (RTA) made in Parliament on Tue (Feb 7).

 

The framework, first announced at the Ministry of Transport’s (MOT) Committee of Supply debate in 2016, will ensure the drivers are equipped with sufficient knowledge and skills to provide service safely, said Second Minister for Transport Ng Chee Meng.

 

“For identification purposes, all chauffeur-driven PHCs must be affixed with tamper-evident decals issued by the LTA (Land Transport Authority), by the middle of this year,” he added. “Together with our existing rules that require PHCs to be licensed as public service vehicles and to have adequate insurance, these measures help LTA better enforce against errant drivers and vehicle owners.”"

 

 

at least this is a step forward to legalize the service, unlike other countries that not only ban the service but their drivers also kena threatened. 

[Benarsenal]

why is LCR a loss making venture? cannot be...as long as got ppl to rent them... 

 

the recent news put there are over 50k of such private hire cars on the road compare to 16k 3 years ago...

so how can such model be loss making?

 

a lot of ppl are renting such vehicle due to the hefty downpayment required for a new car...

that is why such business are booming over the last 3 year.... 

 

You compare cost of a car vs. how much to rent it. Definitely loss what.

 

I already calculate out, just to recoup back the price of one car here in Singapore, they need to rent it out for five years straight. Who will rent an LCR car for five years? Many people drive few months then return already. After that they cannot rent out the same car anymore, at least not at the same rental rate as they charge for a new car.

[Hamburger]

Taxi no need to bid for COE, if LTA also going to treat U/G as taxi can they also not bid coe? So we got less bidder :-)

Taxi no need coe? I thought they use to be under 1.6L category?

[Simpleonly]

Last 3-4 year ago no need liao, if not wrong they will just based on PQP to pay, it will not.subjected to holder a COE.

[Zxcvb]

yeah, who benefits ? Consumers like us lor ............. Nowadays can flag down so much easier, last time in CDB after 4.30pm, you can never see an empty cab roaming the streets. Now I open my uber app anywhere, woah at least 5-8 cars "hovering" around. Simple, you don't want business you can continue to fark around...... 

 

yeah, just like airbnb lah, both were just sharing platforms that want to utilise existing resources that were un-used. Then big boys see the money and game totally changed. 

 

Airbnb nowadays handled mostly by property agents who holds a number units for rental.

[Hamburger]

Last 3-4 year ago no need liao, if not wrong they will just based on PQP to pay, it will not.subjected to holder a COE.

Thanks. I must be staying on a mountain.

[Othello]

Airbnb nowadays handled mostly by property agents who holds a number units for rental.

Dangerous game to play. For lease with 6 mths or more, airbnb is not the right platfirm

[13177]

You compare cost of a car vs. how much to rent it. Definitely loss what.

 

I already calculate out, just to recoup back the price of one car here in Singapore, they need to rent it out for five years straight. Who will rent an LCR car for five years? Many people drive few months then return already. After that they cannot rent out the same car anymore, at least not at the same rental rate as they charge for a new car.

Why cant LCR rent the same rate even though the car has been rented before? I think many car rental companies the rate is still high even though the car already 5 years or more lo. The other time i rented one 8 years old altis, the company charged me $90 per day le!

[SuPerBoRed]

Dangerous game to play. For lease with 6 mths or more, airbnb is not the right platfirm

 

Dangerous thread to be in, For talk about airbnb, this is not the right thread.   

[Jman888]

i think many are going to quit    

 

LTA Lays Down The Law On Grab And Uber - Unleashes Measures To 'Level' The Playing Field With Taxis

Melissa Chan

 

Perhaps this was the day that taxi companies have been waiting for.

 

Yesterday evening, the announcement came that private-hire drivers from ride-sourcing service operators like Uber and Grab would now be required to obtain a vocational licence.

 

This comes after amendments were made to the Road Traffic Act (RTA) in Parliament.

 

Alongside that comes other regulations that the companies and their drivers would now need to abide to, including giving LTA the power to “introduce and enforce other rules such as ensuring the service operators provide the authority with trip and other fleet-related data to help in transport planning functions”.

 

Potential Changes Were Already Mentioned Last Year

 

The idea is nothing new, as it was previously announced last year at the Ministry of Transport’s (MOT) Committee of Supply debate, which saw Senior Minister of State for Transport Ng Chee Meng speaking about how while taxi drivers have expressed their frustration against the competition that came with private-hire arrangements.

 

Given that the latter aren’t bound by the regulations that taxi drivers are, it was seen as unfair, and there have been multiple calls by taxi companies for the Government to ‘level the playing field’.

 

Another area of concern raised by Minister Ng was also that the safety of commuters are not as guaranteed when they engage in private-hires, because they don’t go through the safety training, background screening or demerit point system that taxi drivers have to abide to.

 

Stating that the LTA would introduce a new Private Hire Car Driver Vocational Licensing (PDVL) framework, private-hires would also need to be registered, and have a tamper-evident decal which indicates their PDVL status.

 

Taxi drivers were also set to see several positive changes.

 

Minister Ng mentioned that many taxi drivers had felt that training curriculum for the existing TDVL (Taxi Driver Vocational Licensing) should be updated to fit current market conditions.

 

This entails the drivers being taught how to use GPS, and there were also plans for more training to be online rather than off.

 

Refresher courses that the drivers must attend every six years would also be shortened to three and five hours, from the six and nine-hour sessions.

 

The revisions to the TDVL were set in place from May 2016.

 

Announced in April last year, the once-mysterious PDVL framework has finally been set in stone, and private-hire companies like Uber and Grab are due to see pretty big changes.

 

What Does It Really Mean For Private-Hire Drivers And Companies?

 

While the announcement did mention the regulations that would come with the amendment, many don’t know its actual implications – both the short and long term ones.

 

It’s also unclear if the playing field will actually be levelled with the changes.

 

Regardless, we decided to take a look at the differences between both licenses, and what Uber and Grab drivers would need to do under the PDVL framework.

 

There is not much updated information about PDVLs at the moment, but a quick check on LTA’s site reveals a table of key features, created back in April last year when it was first announced:

 

PDVL features from April 2016 / LTA

 

Vis-à-vis what is stated for TDVL, both are similar in terms of the need for a medical examination, background screening (though not specified for PDVL), the need for a refresher course every few years, and adherence to the Vocational License Points System (VLPS), but some differences stand out:

• Number of training hours: According to the table, private-hire drivers need to attend a 10 hour long (or so) course. In comparison, rven after the revision last year, taxi drivers need to undergo at least 25 hours of training.
• Age restrictions: According to the TDVL guidelines, applicants need to be over 30 years of age. PDVL doesn’t seem to have any restrictions on age.
• Years of driving experience: PDVL applicants need to be holding a license for at least 2 years. TDVL applicants only need a 1 year valid driving license.
• Street-hailing: Successfully registered private-hire drivers would still be unable to pick up passengers along the street. Taxis would have the option of doing so alongside picking up requests from apps.
• Licensing fees: Private-hire companies will be exempt from licensing fees “for now” but taxi companies will see their operating licence fees rise to 0.3% of their gross revenue in 2017, up from 0.2% last year.
• Suspension of operations: Perhaps one of the most contentious parts of the framework, LTA would be able suspend operations of a private-hire company for up to a month if their drivers are convicted of licensing or driving offences. This means that not just the offenders, but all drivers in the fleet would suffer from the consequences.

 

Uber Responds, Says They Weren’t Consulted About The Changes

 

When the news came, we couldn’t help but wonder what Grab and Uber, 2 of the largest private-hire companies here, would have to say about it.

 

Reporting that while Uber said that “it is supportive of any effort by the Government to improve the well-being and safety of passengers and drivers, […] it was not given the opportunity to provide input on some of the amendments to the Road Traffic Act”.

 

In particular, the amendment that will have a private-hire company suspend all its operations if 3 of its drivers are found committing licensing or driving offences.

 

Said Uber Singapore’s general manager Warren Tseng, “This penalty would not only affect operators, but would also impact the tens of thousands of other hardworking driver-partners who are not to blame for the mistakes of just three other driver-partners. […] Hundreds of thousands of commuters would also be affected; especially those who have come to rely on Uber rides as a vital part of their commute.”

 

Stating that Uber will “continue to review the amendments to better understand the implications”, he added:

 

“When industry players are engaged, the result is often a better outcome that simultaneously meets the regulator’s objectives, whilst safeguarding those of other stakeholders, in this case private hire car drivers and riders, and moves the industry forward as a whole.”

 

This claim is interesting to note, as just last year, Uber’s stance on the new rules was pretty positive, saying that it was “pleased” that the Government had “adopted many of our existing world-class safety standards in these new regulations”, such as pre-screening and robust driver skills training, and fits well into the company’s stance that passenger safety was “the single most important thing” for the company.

 

Perhaps, then, it’s the addition of the rather daunting potential of suspension that comes as a nasty surprise for them.

 

On the other side of things though, Grab seems to be taking the amendments pretty well, with their spokesperson stating, “Our goal is to provide the safest transportation platform for users, while ensuring Grab driver-partners continue to earn sustainable incomes – and we are in favour of bill amendments that complement this mission.”

 

The spokesperson also mentioned that their “‘robust’ driver registration process, vehicle inspection framework and relevant internal processes” are well in place to support the changes.

 

Clever move there, Grab.

 

Will This Really Level The Playing Field?

 

It’s too early to say, but the amendments seem to be more skewed towards regulating vocational drivers (in particular, private-hires) on the road and less about making the situation better for both types of drivers.

 

Perhaps the strict regulations would deter more from hopping into the private-hire industry, thus reducing supply of private-hire cars on the road and potentially increasing fares, but that’s way too early to tell now.

 

 

 

[Jayy25]

I wanted to post this the other day, but hmm...

 

Never mind. Here it is anyway.

 

 

I think we need to recalibrate our expectations of Uber/Grab drivers. They are not quite taxi drivers. They don't have the same training or experience as taxi drivers. So the standards definitely are not the same as taxi drivers.

 

Uber's original intention was supposed to be what GrabHitch is like now. It is meant for those who already have cars and wanted to make good use of it by ferrying people and earning a bit of money instead of driving around with just one person all the time (which is what the majority of drivers do and is a bit wasteful). 

 

Now, this kind of system works best in countries where cars are reasonably affordable and most cars are fully paid up, and therefore the net earnings from Uber are likely to be higher if you drive in that situation. But in a country like Singapore where cars cost well over $100,000 and most 'owners' have hefty car loans, it is quite hard to earn much, if anything at all, from driving Uber using your own car.

 

But Uber still wants to have a presence here, therefore it branched out into the car rental model to enable people access to a car in return for enlisting them as drivers. Believe me, LCR is a 100% loss making venture. They will never make any money. Just do a simple calculation and you will know.

 

Singapore's market is probably unique in that the vast majority of Uber drivers are driving rentals instead of their own cars, so in essence it has become almost the same as being a taxi fleet. So I guess implementing regulation is a step in the right direction I feel given how the market has evolved. But I also think there needs to be consistency in the rules and regulations. If LTA wants to treat Uber/Grab the same as taxis, then the rules also have to be the same (the child seat thing being the noted case in point). Otherwise it'll just be another half-f*ck effort that is neither here nor there and confuses everyone.

 

 

to put everything in a nutshell, our dear G just want to have a cut in every market share and emerging technological markets.

 

Take a look:

 

They said online betting is illegal and bad and blah blah.... then suddenly it is ok if Singapore pools does it now

Now, they tackled the uber/grab drivers.. making sure they take up the vocational license ($$$$)

Then, they whacked Airbnb by declaring that it is illegal right away and they shed some light at the end of the tunnel by stating they will come up with a model to cater to airbnb rental (another suck $$$ technique)  

 

 

if money is earned without getting the GOVT involved, it is illegal until they have the pie to maken as well......

 

So expect another another half-f*ck effort because they like to confuses everyone when they cannot convince no one at all... $$$$$$$ is alsways the priority in this current batch of policymakers 

Edited February 9, 2017 by Jayy25

[Nzy]

 

i think many are going to quit    

 

 

 

 

I think the first group to quit will be those insurance/property agents who use their own car to do uber/grab in their free time.

[Kusje]

 

 

In particular, the amendment that will have a private-hire company suspend all its operations if 3 of its drivers are found committing licensing or driving offences.

 

Nabei....

 

Apply it to taxi and bus coy as well la.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Kusje

[Jman888]

Nabei....

 

Apply it to taxi and bus coy as well la.

 

 

i think they read mcf that many people complaint about the Uber/Grab reckless driving